Enineered 5A FSD vrs Tech Broker 5A FSD V1

[Greasetrap42]

The beauty is you can travel to wherever in a comfy long range ship and have a lower range fun ship transferred to a FC pretty cheep. (for those of us with no FC). Low cost ships like AspX, DBX, etc crazy cheep, just takes a week to xfer across galaxy. If you plan ahead its not a big deal. In fact its pretty awesome. FCs have differentiated Long Range Travel Ships from Exploration Ships.

Squeeking every light year out of an Exploration Ship at the cost of comfort and utility really isn't important anymore.

Example Transfer costs at Beagle Point.

 

[TANDKO]

Of course it can. You don't need 7d thrusters, either. 5d work just fine. It's an exploration fit. Remember, the Conda can also fit the class 5 guardian fsd booster.

Quick and dirty build. You can add a lot more and still be above 75.

Coriolis EDCD Edition

A ship builder, outfitting and comparison tool for Elite Dangerous

s.orbis.zone

Cut the fuel tank in half as you said, and you're at 80ly. I always carry extra tanks, though.

Ok, I agree that it can do more with 5d thrusters but I would hate it, it is awful to fly. Odyssey exploration will include landing (not only supercruise) and 5d thrusters will be painful

 

[Susanna]

Yes, BECAUSE it's no more no less than a G5 long range AND G5 Faster Boot Sequence on top of it.
Faster Boot Sequence mod G5 improves Optimal Mass by 15%.

Then the obvious answer is yes as you gain synergy from these two mods that give you a 76% jump range improvement. I've bought several of them already as they suit exploration ships well (DBX, AspX, Krait Phantom, and even a general purpose Python).

 

[[DOOK] Droogie]

Ok, I agree that it can do more with 5d thrusters but I would hate it, it is awful to fly. Odyssey exploration will include landing (not only supercruise) and 5d thrusters will be painful

7d to 5d is only a difference of about 20m/s with dirty drives.

Here's a 75ly Krait Phantom

Coriolis EDCD Edition

A ship builder, outfitting and comparison tool for Elite Dangerous

s.orbis.zone

 

[WreckRoot]

7d to 5d is only a difference of about 20m/s with dirty drives.

Here's a 75ly Krait Phantom

Coriolis EDCD Edition

A ship builder, outfitting and comparison tool for Elite Dangerous

s.orbis.zone

It's not just speed, it's maneuverability that counts as well - at least to me. I like my ships acting like ships, not asteroids with a laptop cooler for thrusters. Both of the 75+ LY jump range ships I saw here (conda and phantom) have an abysmal 36 deg/s pitch. My 67LY AspX (that could theoretically go around 70 if I cared to engineer/optimize a few more things) has a 55 deg/s pitch and to be frank, I'll gladly trade the 15% jump range for a 50% increase in maneuverability.
The game is supposed to be fun and to me stuff like

• zipping around the star on full throttle while scooping at maximum efficiency
• dodging white dwarfs / neutrons and aligning with the plume quickly
• occasionally doing a flyby around double stars/planets, maybe flying over a planet's surface or landing for some photo op

... are probably the most fun part of exploration and would become a chore in a build like you posted.

I understand many people think of the game in a min-max manner and some would enjoy trading their kidney for a few more lightseconds of jumprange, but I don't and I believe I'm not alone

EDIT. and a couple more things here:
1. Interdictions - sometimes when passing through/next to colonized systems you might get interdicted for whatever reason - powerplay, player griefing, npc piracy. A flying brick won't evade, my Asp has a very good chance to (I haven't yet been interdicted by players, but I have been interdicted by NPCs and out of about 100 attempts I evaded all). Every time you are forced out of supercruise is time wasted.
2. The 75+ LY jump range builds posted have an ~15-20% advantage in jump range over my Asp, depending on details. If those ships' "average jump" takes 15-20% longer than for my Asp, then the range advantage is nullified merely by my capacity to just more frequently (unless we're talking about reaching stars that are 150 LY apart which is possible on +100% jumponium for a Conda but not for my Asp). Possible causes for longer average jump could be:

• Anaconda can't mount FSD v1 so loses the benefit of Faster Boot Sequence mod.
• Heavier ships burn more fuel so have to scoop more often.
• Scooping in a flying brick requires parking next to the star, which adds deceleration/acceleration time. My Asp can scoop at 6A Scoop's maximum efficiency while going full throttle around the star, so when I'm done I just pitch down and I'm out of red zone within 2 seconds.

 

[[DOOK] Droogie]

It's not just speed, it's maneuverability that counts as well - at least to me. I like my ships acting like ships, not asteroids with a laptop cooler for thrusters. Both of the 75+ LY jump range ships I saw here (conda and phantom) have an abysmal 36 deg/s pitch. My 67LY AspX (that could theoretically go around 70 if I cared to engineer/optimize a few more things) has a 55 deg/s pitch and to be frank, I'll gladly trade the 15% jump range for a 50% increase in maneuverability.
The game is supposed to be fun and to me stuff like

• zipping around the star on full throttle while scooping at maximum efficiency
• dodging white dwarfs / neutrons and aligning with the plume quickly
• occasionally doing a flyby around double stars/planets, maybe flying over a planet's surface or landing for some photo op

... are probably the most fun part of exploration and would become a chore in a build like you posted.

I understand many people think of the game in a min-max manner and some would enjoy trading their kidney for a few more lightseconds of jumprange, but I don't and I believe I'm not alone

EDIT. and a couple more things here:
1. Interdictions - sometimes when passing through/next to colonized systems you might get interdicted for whatever reason - powerplay, player griefing, npc piracy. A flying brick won't evade, my Asp has a very good chance to (I haven't yet been interdicted by players, but I have been interdicted by NPCs and out of about 100 attempts I evaded all). Every time you are forced out of supercruise is time wasted.
2. The 75+ LY jump range builds posted have an ~15-20% advantage in jump range over my Asp, depending on details. If those ships' "average jump" takes 15-20% longer than for my Asp, then the range advantage is nullified merely by my capacity to just more frequently (unless we're talking about reaching stars that are 150 LY apart which is possible on +100% jumponium for a Conda but not for my Asp). Possible causes for longer average jump could be:

• Anaconda can't mount FSD v1 so loses the benefit of Faster Boot Sequence mod.
• Heavier ships burn more fuel so have to scoop more often.
• Scooping in a flying brick requires parking next to the star, which adds deceleration/acceleration time. My Asp can scoop at 6A Scoop's maximum efficiency while going full throttle around the star, so when I'm done I just pitch down and I'm out of red zone within 2 seconds.

Eh. Maneuverability isn't going to be affected much on a Conda when both engines have G5 dirty drives. You just expect it to be bad either way in that ship.

The Phantom is actually very maneuverable. The Krait MKII is a bit more sluggish.

I tend to scoop with yaw for steering.

 

[TANDKO]

7d to 5d is only a difference of about 20m/s with dirty drives.

Here's a 75ly Krait Phantom

Coriolis EDCD Edition

A ship builder, outfitting and comparison tool for Elite Dangerous

s.orbis.zone

Type10 is just 20m/s slower than Corvette that doesn't mean it is just 10% less maneuverable. I would sacrifice a bit range for maneuverability. But you are right, if you want to push jump range to the max Conda has more. But I would prefer A class thrusters, and with that for me DBX wins, it also can land anywhere.

PS. Phantom is actually quite good, you are right, even more maneuverable than DBX. I just have not been able to dig deeper with engineering of it, but with new FSD V1 I wanted to look into ASP and Phantom again.

 

[Greasetrap42]

2. The 75+ LY jump range builds posted have an ~15-20% advantage in jump range over my Asp, depending on details. If those ships' "average jump" takes 15-20% longer than for my Asp, then the range advantage is nullified merely by my capacity to just more frequently (unless we're talking about reaching stars that are 150 LY apart which is possible on +100% jumponium for a Conda but not for my Asp). Possible causes for longer average jump could be:

Yep, a good star-hoping travel ship can zip around a star while scooping and then immediately start jump sequence without losing time. Slowing down to scoop, wider distance from star to prevent overheating, or the need to wait and cool down before jumping slow down travel.

If a ship can zip around a star while scooping, & then jump then IMO its a good star-hopping ship.


Edit: What I really mean to say is if it can't do this then its a bad star-hopping ship. There may be other factors that make it a crumby star-hopping ship too. Poor jump range being obvious. Overall comfort because the cmdr needs to fly this ship for hours & hours. Personally I like a nice cockpit view.

 

[WreckRoot]

Eh. Maneuverability isn't going to be affected much on a Conda when both engines have G5 dirty drives. You just expect it to be bad either way in that ship.

The Phantom is actually very maneuverable. The Krait MKII is a bit more sluggish.

I tend to scoop with yaw for steering.

Ok right now we're in a deadlock until somebody applies science .

I made a test run already - jumping 20 stars with most of them scoopable and scooping every star I could (my fancy) I achieved an average jump cost of 49ish seconds. Let's say it's 50 seconds to account for rounding as I can't remember the decimals and can't replicate the experiment now (maybe tonight).

If anyone here who suggests conda/phantom is better for their improved range, please do the same experiment:

• at least 20 jumps
• no plumes, no jumponium
• scoop as often as you wish, but...
• scoop the last star before destination (so that we're comparing apples to apples, max fuel in and max fuel out)

Post your

• build (mention if FSD v1 since sites can't show it)
• average jump time (from e.g. arrival to arrival or witchworld to witchworld - just make sure it's again apples to apples)
• any hints on how you did it (e.g. "scooped only at below 60% fuel")

Let's figure this out properly

I'm open to being proven wrong. Waiting for your entries

 

[Greasetrap42]

If anyone here who suggests conda/phantom is better for their improved range, please do the same experiment:

Fun idea. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe internet speed is a factor. Possibly (maybe?) Solo/Open.

 

[WreckRoot]

Fun idea. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe internet speed is a factor. Possibly (maybe?) Solo/Open.

A lag can artificially extend the entry/exit to/from witchworld (which is basically the loading screen), yes. I don't think it would matter much though. Either way, I can't (be arsed to) run the experiment myself on all ship builds (working dad of two, sacrificing sleep to have any time to play).

So yeah, you're right - if we want the most reliable results, someone has to run both the conda/krait and asp. Here's my build if anyone bothers, just take note that 1) EDSY understates the jump range because it doesn't account for FSDv1 and 2) I clearly didn't bother engineering the absolute crap out of it, can't be bothered.

edit. oh and I play solo when I want to get from A to B. With the limited playtime I have (essentially none unless I sacrifice sleep), I can't be bothered to waste time on some griefer kiddo with nothing better to do than blowing me up just to feel like they've grown something in their pants as a result. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Cmdr Snuffler]

Ok, I agree that it can do more with 5d thrusters but I would hate it, it is awful to fly. Odyssey exploration will include landing (not only supercruise) and 5d thrusters will be painful

Hmmm horizons exploration wasn't just SC. Exploring also included landing, or flying, on planet surfaces...so 5d has been painful for years.

 

[Greasetrap42]

If comparing overall travel time then need to compare (effective travel distance) / (time).

Can't be just comparing average jump time. Otherwise a ship with 20LY range will win the test.

A plotted route will be more straight for a ship with greater jump range, less overall travel distance. In a less dense galactic region a ship with less jump range actually travels more distance, zig-zagging to get to destination.


Really-> I prefer a bit of comfort & utility over a few extra LY. A little extra zig-zagging, 4 more jumps to destination, who cares. I lose far more than that when I get up to get a coffee.... or pause to type in the forums. When travelling I don't sit at my PC with eyes permanently glued on the monitor waiting for that exact instant to start pressing buttons.

 

[WreckRoot]

If comparing overall travel time then need to compare (effective travel distance) / (time).

Can't be just comparing average jump time. Otherwise a ship with 20LY range will win the test.

A plotted route will be more straight for a ship with greater jump range, less overall travel distance. In a less dense galactic region a ship with less jump range actually travels more distance, zig-zagging to get to destination.

1. We are not just comparing travel time from A to B, we're comparing overall effectiveness of Exploration vessels in everything they do. If it was just about travel time on long distances then all we needed to do was finding a route that's a couple thousand LY long and have a race.
2. When the notion of comparing average jump time arose, it was in the context of trading jump range for jump time. A ship that jumps 10% farther but takes 10% more time to jump will, on average and on local distances in reasonably dense areas, come out about even.
3. I agree that zigzagging could be an issue that elongates the overall path. It is hard to calculate though. I am fully on board that a vessel with 20LY jump range will have to cover significantly more distance than a 40LY jump range one, but I am not convinced that this matters so much when we're talking 65-75 LY ranges. If someone with a 75+ LY jump range vessel could check this by plotting a fastest route to the same destination e.g. 2kLY away from the same port using two builds, one with 75ish and the other 65ish LY range, that could be informative.
4. I already mentioned and agree that having longer jump range may unlock stars that are simply unreachable for vessels with lower jump range. Question is whether trading every bit of joy in flying the ship is worth squeezing those few extra LY of range to have a chance of reaching some system. I'm not convinced.

Lastly, as I said, this is mostly about overall exploration ship effectiveness. You have to be able to jump, evade stars/ sail plumes, supercruise, dss, maybe land as well. All of these things become much slower and, more importantly to me, more annoying with a flying brick like a Conda on 5D thrusters. With as little time as I have to play, I want as much of it as possible to be enjoyable. That's why I do 60 minute, 64t core mining trips with an Asp for 50 million at a time instead of several hour long trips in something that has 300+ cargo, or robigo runs. I can't afford to not enjoy my time to play.

 

[Greasetrap42]

We are not just comparing travel time from A to B, we're comparing overall effectiveness of Exploration vessels in everything they do

I was replying to your very specific range-jump-time test.

I made a test run already - jumping 20 stars with most of them scoopable and scooping every star ... average jump cost of 49ish seconds....

If anyone here who suggests conda/phantom is better for their improved range, please do the same experiment:

• at least 20 jumps
• no plumes, no jumponium
• scoop as often as you wish, but...
• scoop the last star before destination (so that we're comparing apples to apples, max fuel in and max fuel out)

 

[Greasetrap42]

I am not convinced that this matters so much when we're talking 65-75 LY ranges. If someone with a 75+ LY jump range vessel could check this by plotting a fastest route to the same destination e.g. 2kLY away from the same port using two builds, one with 75ish and the other 65ish LY range, that could be informative.

Do some traveling. Obviously the zig-zagging increases with scarcity of stars. As you move into a less dense region you will see the effect regardless if you are flying a 40LY ship or a 75LY ship. Its all relative to the jump range of the ship and density of the stars.

 

[WreckRoot]

I was replying to your very specific range-jump-time test.

Yes, but the very specific test was designed to answer a very specific question within a larger picture. You ignored the picture and raised issues with the test that are either irrelevant or had already been acknowledged. It's called cherry-picking and it's counterproductive to the conversation cause it forces others to repeat themselves.

Do some traveling. Obviously the zig-zagging increases with scarcity of stars. As you move into a less dense region you will see the effect regardless if you are flying a 40LY ship or a 75LY ship. Its all relative to the jump range of the ship and density of the stars.

Yes, you can find scenarios where higher jump range is beneficial (doh), but then there's an abundance of opportunities for higher maneuverability to be beneficial in a number of ways. I will reiterate - in my opinion, sacrificing 15% of my jump range for the few disadvantages it yields is well worth it to have a ship with 50% more maneuverability. With the little time I have to play and how much less enjoyable flying a brick is to flying my Asp, I pick the Asp.

Spoiler: way too many details

I think this is irrelevant to the conversation because from my experience in exploration you travel for two different reasons, traversing or exploring.

• If you're exploring a dense area, you're jumping to the nearest star (perhaps filtered to ones you're interested in, e.g. four great kings), in which case you're likely jumping significantly shorter distances than your max. Ship maneuverability becomes much more useful here than jump range.
• If you're exploring a sparse area, the only benefit you have from longer max jump range is your ability to reach something at the very edge of it on jumponium. I'm not convinced that having a 100% enhanced jump range of 150LY is going to unlock you a hoard of star systems to explore vs having a 130LY max. So long story short, in my opinion, benefit of having a longer jump range is a few more stars in range and a handful of mats saved on jumponium.
• If you're traversing a neutron highway, I find that there are enough with neutrons for a 65LY ship to sail across without issue. I can't see a significant advantage of longer jump range in this case unless you have a neutron highway to is so sparse that 4*65=260LY is not enough to connect neutrons but 4*75=300LY is. No benefit imho.
• If you're traversing a dense area, I find zigzagging isn't really an issue (assuming we're talking about a 65LY-75LY difference, not 20LY-75LY of course). It is this case that the proposed experiment is supposed to test. That being said, I'm open to someone showing me a 2kLY route through a dense area where the amount of jumps required from a 65LY ship is inexplicably higher than in case of a 75LY jump range ship. For example, a dumb calculation for a random route that requires 30 jumps from a 75LY range ship (30*75 = 2250LY) should require about 35 jumps from a 65LY ship (35*65 = 2275LY). If you give me a case of a path through a dense area that takes 30 jumps from a 75LY ship but significantly more than 35 jumps from a 65LY ship, I will definitely reconsider my position. I don't have a 75LY ship and no time to make one so I'll kindly ask you
• If you're traversing a sparse area (where the zigzagging really becomes an issue) then, in my opinion, you're doing something wrong. Go 500LY towards the center of the disc and you'll have a much easier time traversing. If you're at the very edge of the disc and there's no way to find a denser area to traverse in the way you're going, then I think you're likely so far out that you will have plenty of uncharted systems that you're actually exploring.

 

[Greasetrap42]

Yes, you can find scenarios where higher jump range is beneficial (doh)

When you realize that 50% of the galaxy volume is low density stars (and spiral shaped) you will have a greater appreciation for a ship's jump range.

I'm really not sure what you are arguing or why. You are flying a semi-engineered ship doing whatever. Sure, do whatever makes you happy, that's fine. For those of us designing a ship with purpose and willing to equip & engineer it -> a good approach is to design in Coriolis, modify design for improved performance, utility or desired comfort based on cmdr's purpose and preferences for the specific ship. Then then build it. There are trade-offs made for the ship's purpose.

 

[WreckRoot]

When you realize that 50% of the galaxy volume is low density stars (and spiral shaped) you will have a greater appreciation for a ship's jump range.

I'm really not sure what you are arguing or why. You are flying a semi-engineered ship doing whatever. Sure, do whatever makes you happy, that's fine. For those of us designing a ship with purpose and willing to equip & engineer it -> a good approach is to design in Coriolis, modify design for improved performance, utility or desired comfort based on cmdr's purpose and preferences for the specific ship. Then then build it. There are trade-offs made for the ship's purpose.

Alright, I seem to have fallen prey to my regular mistake of making a narrow case with tons of explanations a priori, which as per usual leads to people picking out single lines out of context and missing my point entirely. I should've learned by now. No time to fix so I'm backing out

Wreckroot out o7

 

[[DOOK] Droogie]

Eh. Maneuverability isn't going to be affected much on a Conda when both engines have G5 dirty drives. You just expect it to be bad either way in that ship.

Type10 is just 20m/s slower than Corvette that doesn't mean it is just 10% less maneuverable. I would sacrifice a bit range for maneuverability. But you are right, if you want to push jump range to the max Conda has more. But I would prefer A class thrusters, and with that for me DBX wins, it also can land anywhere.

PS. Phantom is actually quite good, you are right, even more maneuverable than DBX. I just have not been able to dig deeper with engineering of it, but with new FSD V1 I wanted to look into ASP and Phantom again.

The Phantom is a pleasure to fly. It has become the ship I find myself in more than anything.

I used to use the AspX as my workhorse, but the yaw is terrible, and I couldn't stand the sound of it blowing raspberries anymore.